what is the point of cutting? aren't you just going to gain

>>39140794
There is no point in cutting.

>>39140809
then why do ppl do it

>>39140794

>eating normal

Not all of us consider eating normal means gorging ourselves you filthy fucking slob. "Normal" is eating at maintenance so you dont gain or lose weight (with exception of building muscle)

So no, if you eat normal you wont go back to bulk mode

>>39140794

If you are/were a fatty, you should never go back to (by your definition) "eating normal". You need to re-learn how to eat correctly, and then eat that way for the rest of your life.

>>39140870
normal is relative but cutting is always less than normal. if you are cutting, you're eating lower than you usually do.

unless your cut is permanent, won't you return to your normal weight when "the cut" is over and you resume eating like you normally do?

>>39140888
I get that, but I see people on here complaining about cutting and only being able to eat brown rice and unflavored chicken. is their plan to do this forever? or is there a short term purpose for "cutting"?

also I'm not a fattie making excuses, just curious

>>39140794
>>39140809
>>39140898

for natty bodybuilders, the technique is to cut to a respectable bodyfat percentage (8-15%), then leanbulk up so they only gain 1-2 lbs of fat a month, while reaping all the benefits of a full bulk

>but whats the point if you're just gaining it back?

if you keep bulking or 'normal eating' as you call it, you'll end up morbidly obese within a year or two, which has alot of health and mental side effects

>>39140898
you will not return to your normal weight if you go back up to maintenance. you'll gain some water weight due to being depleted but almost no fat, if you rebound out of the cut CORRECTLY.

>>39140794
Bulking and cutting is retarded and doesn't work unless your'e a teen - young adult male who has a shitload of growing to do and don't enough.
Even then, a massive dreamer bulk during that time will actually make you fat for life.

The only people outside of that who can like super bulk and cut are adults who are on gear and make controlling their diet and drugs their life.

>>39140898
Yes normal is relative.

After your cut your maintenance calorie amount may have changed to a lower amount. But if you eat at that amount than you will not change.

Simply:
Over dcc=bigger
Under dcc =smaller
Eat at dcc=nothing
Your body must abide by these laws its biology

>>39140794
Eating normal means a diet based on aprox 2000 cal. so you maintain your weight, not gain or lose (depending on how much exercise you do).

>>39140794
Aesthetic reasons
People do it to look better at summer, you look more "ripped" if you are in a cut

>>39141011
isn't your maintenance based on your weight? like as a 180lb man mine is around 2,000, but if I want to be a 170lb man, won't I permanently have to eat like 1800 cals for the rest of my life?

>>39140794

not the same guy

check the glasses

File: 4-chan-daffy-duck-stonefaced.jpg (205KB, 1477x1078px) Image search: [Google]

205KB, 1477x1078px

>>39140898

YOU BRAINLESS FUCK

>bulk = gain weight
>cut = lose weight
>maintenance = weight stays the same

OBVIOUSLY IF YOU FINISH YOUR CUT AND GO TO MAINTENANCE YOU STOP LOSING WEIGHT BUT THEN STABILIZE(plus a bit of water weight).

>>39140924

>

if you keep bulking or 'normal eating' as you call it, you'll end up morbidly obese within a year or two, which has alot of health and mental side effects

wew lad so i have been lean bulking for two years without realizing it

>>39141093
I don't think it works that way, if you eat 2000 cal. (Aprox as I said bc it depends on your metabolism) you will maintain your current weight, not matter what it is. Or at least this is what I learnt from the sticky. But also consider your physical activity, it's not the same being sedentary than moderate activity, and it's not the same than intense activity.
I suggest you find out yourself by trying.
Eating less is easier than eating much anyway, just drink tea for breakfast and snack, stuff yourself with vegetables, cereals and fruit.

>>39141261
now you listen here buster your maintenance changes when you become a lower weight. if your maintenance was 2.5k calories at 230 lbs, but then you cut to 170lbs by eating 1.8k calories a day, you must now eat 1.8k calories to stay at that weight, for that's your new maintenance. if you go back to "normal" (2.5k calories) you will just go back to 230 lbs, not stabilize.

>>39141366

>2.5k calories maintenance at 230lbs

are you a fuckin idiot or do you just have bad mathematical skills?

Who the fuck bulks 60lbs? can you at least use a reasonable example like an intelligent human being?

cutting 220 lbs to 200lbs won't fucking magically drop your maintenance by 500 calories, unless you had 5500 to begin with maybe.

>>39141366
if at 1800 calories you were losing weight, you need to eat more to maintain.

>>39141366

Energy In - Energy Out = X

X < 0 -> cutting
X = 0 -> maintenance

If you are cutting, your intake is lower than your maintenance. Increasing from a cut to maintenance (what you keep calling "normal") will cause your weight to stay the same. This is not complicated.

>>39141486
I just checked the calculator and it says 2.2k for a 230lb lightly active man and 1.8k for a 170lb lightly active man.

I'm saying if you're 230 trying to get to 170, you need to cut, but once you hit 170, you can't go back to eating normal (which is 2.2k cals). You instead must permanently eat 1.8kcals

>>39141145

Yes it's the same guy. The left is from a hydroxycut add so it (and the rest of the pics) are probably a little exaggerated. They are good though if you google them, haha. Lee Priest is a funny and honest dude too, very open about his love for "Kentucky" and stuff (KFC).

>>39141512
yeah but the big thing I'm assuming that might be causing confusion is that your maintenance changes after your cut. a 230lb man has a 2.2k cal maintenance, and a 170lb man has a 1.8kcal maintenance.

when I say "normal" I'm talking about your old 230lb maintenance of 2.2kcal. you can't ever go back to eating that way or you'll weight 230lbs eventually. this brings me to the ultimate question of why cut if it's not permanent.

is this correct?

>>39140794
well if you normally eat that much then you are a fucking obese swine anyways

>>39140924
When bulking, how do you determine how much of the weight you're putting on is fat?

>>39141539

>1.7k on a 170lbs man

basal metabolic rate maybe, or worst genetics on the planet.

Yes if you cut at -500 calories while losing 60lbs you can't fucking go back to normal because your "normal" maintenance is classified as fatlord amounts of calories per day.

But if you are just losing 10-15lbs and are cutting at 2200 cals, you can generally go back to 2400-2500 just fine.

>>39141641
that last part is very reassuring and makes me want to cut.